Skip to main content

Criminal charges can be altered at any stage of trial: Delhi HC

The Delhi high court has held that lower courts have "comprehensive" power to alter or add charges in a criminal case at any stage of trial prior to the pronouncement of judgement.

"The court has ample power to amend or alter a charge only with a condition that it should give full opportunity to the accused to make out his defence," a bench of justices Kailash Gambhir and Indermeet Kaur said.

Referring to a provision of Code of Criminal Procedure, it said, "This section (216) invests comprehensive power in the court to remedy the defects in the framing or non-framing of a charge, whether discovered at the initial stage of the trial or at any subsequent stage prior to judgement.

"If there is any omission in the charge framed at the commencement of trial and the omission is discovered at any time before giving the judgement, that omission can be remedied under this section and an appropriate charge may be framed," the bench said.

The observations came in a verdict on a set of appeals filed against convictions under sections 304B (dowry death) and 498A (subjecting a woman to cruelty) of the IPC in a case.

It was alleged that Yash Jain, along with his parents Veena Jain and Subhash Jain and brother-in-law Prashant Jain, had caused death of his 28-year-old wife Shalu on January 23, 1998, within two-and-half years of the marriage for dowry.

The lower court had awarded life imprisonment to Yash and varying jail terms to the other convicts.

Ordering a de-novo trial of the accused by adding fresh and harsher charge of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, the high court came down heavily on the trial judge for not amending the charges despite having prima facie evidence in the case.

"Even after being empowered with such vast power, we fail to comprehend why such an injudicious approach was adopted by the learned trial court.

"The learned trial court had perhaps forgotten that fair and proper trial is at the core of our judicial system to reach the ultimate goal of dispensation of justice between the parties. It is the first and foremost duty of every court to see that neither any innocent man is punished nor any guilty person escapes...," it said.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-12/india/46112382_1_trial-judge-delhi-high-court-life-imprisonment

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more